Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-24-2011, 05:35 AM   #61
Brycesv1
Crash Test Expert
 
Brycesv1's Avatar
Default

if theres one thing microsoft wont do, its work on stuff that matters. more correctly they will only work on what matters "to them". im confident that they will dumb down everything so much for the mainstream audience that even if they do add some realism settings for us simmers, we wont even come close to real dynamics.
Brycesv1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 05:42 AM   #62
Pyromaniac605
Toast! :D
 
Pyromaniac605's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tl8 View Post
 Please keep on topic.

FSX vs X-Flight is not relevant in this thread


Please keep the topic to MS:Flight
Quoting as it didn't work the first time.
Personally, I want more info before I decide whether to buy it or not.
Pyromaniac605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 06:06 AM   #63
Apollon
Orbinaut
Default

If it's not mentioned before, all of you that plan to get FLIGHT, make sure to upgrade to at least Win Vista, but i would suggest Win 7, because FLIGHT will not support DX9 and Win XP can only take up to DX9.

Apollon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 06:47 AM   #64
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brycesv1 View Post
 if theres one thing microsoft wont do, its work on stuff that matters. more correctly they will only work on what matters "to them". im confident that they will dumb down everything so much for the mainstream audience that even if they do add some realism settings for us simmers, we wont even come close to real dynamics.
.........whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.



FSX's realism settings allowed you to span the range from "never seen an airplane before" to "real-world pilot," why can't Flight's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollon View Post
 If it's not mentioned before, all of you that plan to get FLIGHT, make sure to upgrade to at least Win Vista, but i would suggest Win 7, because FLIGHT will not support DX9 and Win XP can only take up to DX9.

Are you sure? Wikipedia suggests that there may be a DX9 compatibility mode. Certainly, I would hope Microsoft learned their lesson after the first two DX10-only games...

Plus, I wouldn't upgrade any time before it comes out--new hardware is coming out all the time and making upgrades less expensive, and upgrading before you know the hardware requirements for something isn't the best idea...

Last edited by Hielor; 08-24-2011 at 06:49 AM.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 07:01 AM   #65
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

I want a bus simulator.
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 07:53 AM   #66
Apollon
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 .........whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.



FSX's realism settings allowed you to span the range from "never seen an airplane before" to "real-world pilot," why can't Flight's?


Are you sure? Wikipedia suggests that there may be a DX9 compatibility mode. Certainly, I would hope Microsoft learned their lesson after the first two DX10-only games...

Plus, I wouldn't upgrade any time before it comes out--new hardware is coming out all the time and making upgrades less expensive, and upgrading before you know the hardware requirements for something isn't the best idea...
I'm not sure 'bout that, i was reading that info about 10 days ago on official FLIGHT website, and after that on Wiki.
Apollon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 08:07 AM   #67
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FADEC View Post
 A flight simulation is something I use to fly complex aircraft or to simulate different flight dynamics. Multiplayer is something I need for gaming actually. And windows live is not just multiplayer. It's like that World of Warcraft Real ID social network-like crap, in which you can be connected with "friends". Soon they all are going to connect all this with facebook also (to meet more people in order to milk the cow even more). I bet.
Amazing how the internet interjects itself insidiously into your life and takes your money when you communicate with others.. Even more amazing is that it makes others "do the convincing" to you that you need to do this. You don't need to do jack!!

That stuff aside. The "FAA version" of x-plane, when used in a complete setup, only has to verify that the physical controls are present and it has to main a certain FPS, whatever it may be. That's the difference between the "home" version and the "FAA certified" version. THAT'S IT! The dynamics are the same, the graphic detail is the same, the flight models are the same. and so on and so forth.
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 08:16 AM   #68
Pyromaniac605
Toast! :D
 
Pyromaniac605's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 Are you sure? Wikipedia suggests that there may be a DX9 compatibility mode. Certainly, I would hope Microsoft learned their lesson after the first two DX10-only games...
There isn't really a reason not to, it's far better than DX9 and most people who are serious about computers have moved from XP long ago.
Pyromaniac605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 09:17 AM   #69
Evil_Onyx
Orbinaut
 
Evil_Onyx's Avatar
Default

As i understand it, Flight is a complete re-write of the Microsoft Flight Simulator code, as FSX's main limitations came from the base code that is probably the similar to FS 5.0. As such it has been in need of a re-write of the code for a long time.

some of FSX's bugs that are related to the base code.

Flat airports - i have never seen a truly flat runway in my life, most have one end higher than the other.
Reverse flight - ever messed up a hammer head tern and have the aircraft spin and gain altitude.
Collision detection - crashing in to buildings/ground/aircraft even though there is plenty of sun light between you.
North and South pole - if you have ever flown there you will know what i mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keatah View Post
 I want a bus simulator.
http://www.bussimulatorgame.com/

Be careful what you wish for

Last edited by Evil_Onyx; 08-24-2011 at 09:20 AM.
Evil_Onyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 10:48 AM   #70
Grover
Saturn V Misfire
 
Grover's Avatar

Default

getting back on-topic...

i think the "Flight marketplace" is an excellent idea; it should make pirating (yar har!) addons much harder, so payware developers are better off, and it will be much easier to install new addons, since that would be controlled by the launcher/marketplace.

for those of us that have used steam, it should be like that, and even better, freeware products could still be added through the marketplace, then you would get community ratings and reviews on the addons! theres nothing worse than downloading an addon (especially with slow broadband) only to find the VC is sub-terrible and the controls are limited to basics

ill certainly be buying the new sim, possibly when i upgrade my computer, after my holiday and once i have money again, but it could be released in 2014 for all we know
Grover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 11:11 AM   #71
Keatah
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Onyx View Post
 As i understand it, Flight is a complete re-write of the Microsoft Flight Simulator code, as FSX's main limitations came from the base code that is probably the similar to FS 5.0. As such it has been in need of a re-write of the code for a long time.

some of FSX's bugs that are related to the base code.

Flat airports - i have never seen a truly flat runway in my life, most have one end higher than the other.
Reverse flight - ever messed up a hammer head tern and have the aircraft spin and gain altitude.
Collision detection - crashing in to buildings/ground/aircraft even though there is plenty of sun light between you.
North and South pole - if you have ever flown there you will know what i mean.


http://www.bussimulatorgame.com/

Be careful what you wish for
OHH GOD! I've gotta get this now! I was only half joking when I said I wanted a bus sim. And as a bonus they also have a garbage truck simulator too. Ohhh my!

Well I figured I'd google the sub-genre and I found others.
http://www.citybussimulator.com/index.php?id=265&L=1
http://www.level3pcindonesia.com/201...simulator.html

This is as far I go about posting about BUS SIMULATORS on orbiter forum.

Back to FSX and stuff, I understand that FSX has some code heritage all the way back to the 1980 version written by Bruce Artwick from subLOGIC. The code flow is in that style and there is real 6502 code embedded in FSX, a small tiny portion of it runs through emulation or something. This is done for nostalgia's sake. That in and of itself doesn't really impact performance at all.

The thing that makes FSX so slow is the general flow, it's too much like the FS 1 and FS 2. They never tried a new architecture since then!! Can you imagine that?
Keatah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 01:03 PM   #72
FADEC
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromaniac605 View Post
 There isn't really a reason not to, it's far better than DX9 and most people who are serious about computers have moved from XP long ago.
People who are serious about computers have moved from Windows in general some time ago

Never change a running system too soon. "Better graphics" is not a reason to do so, for me. The difference between DX11 and DX9 is not stunning but it just helps to sell Win7. I'm still very pleased with FS9, X-Plane, Orbiter and SSMS (X-Plane and SSMS is based on OpenGL anyway). And I play a lot of retro games from the 1990s. 99% of the new stuff does not attract me. Somehow, all that MS marketing and Win Vista and Win7 advertisement did not work for me. What do I get with Vista and Win7? Cool GUI's and DX10/11? Yawn. Ever seen DX9 vs DX11 videos? It's not worth one penny to change the OS. A system has to be practical, stable, fast and run the desired software. And this is what I get from XP for a decade now. I'm happy with that grey Windows classic style appearance. And just take a look at the laptops aboard the Shuttle and ISS...

If MS Flight is not downward compatible, then I am not interested anyway and I am not already because of Windows Live. I want a simulation, not a game. And I also would not buy Win7 because of something like this. In fact I did buy Win7. But I should have spend the money to my local ice cream shop to get a season ticket. The two post-XP systems bore the crap out of me. MS Flight also is going to only if I watch the short eye candy preview videos.

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keatah View Post
 This is as far I go about posting about BUS SIMULATORS on orbiter forum.
These days you get simulators for everything. Even for garbage collection
FADEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 02:27 PM   #73
Cras
Spring of Life!
 
Cras's Avatar
Default

Wait, what? You don't think DX11 is a big improvement over DX9? Just the new ways it can deal with lighting alone is worth it.

But one has to understand the mind of the average, no I should say the vast majority, of FSX users, and they want what they see to resemble what they see in real life. That is why there are so many texture add-ons, mesh add ons, why people insist on using the ENB mod even though it makes FSX terribly unstable.

I am telling you, MS will market Flight in two ways, one as a game for those who have nothing to do with FSX or FS9, and then to the already hard core flight simmers, that it is FSX with better graphics and stability. That alone will get most FSXers to get Flight.

It used to be that if you want FSX to run at its peak, you had to use Win XP. Vista and FSX just did not play nice together, and all sorts of things had to be done, like mess around with sound quality, to get it to run fairly stable.

Now that is not at all the case. If you want FSX to run at its peak, you need to use Win 7. FSX on Win 7 is more stable, and runs faster than it ever did on XP, as long as you have entered that HIGHMEMFIX line into your.cfg file.

But you have a full DX10 FSX, or better yet a full DX11 FSX, considering you are dealing with water, clouds, road and building night lighting, DX11 will make a vast improvement over what default FSX looks like.
Cras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 04:13 PM   #74
Turbinator
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keatah View Post
 I want a bus simulator.
There are two:
  1. http://www.busdrivergame.com/
  2. http://www.citybussimulator.com/
Turbinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 05:34 PM   #75
FADEC
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cras View Post
 Wait, what? You don't think DX11 is a big improvement over DX9? Just the new ways it can deal with lighting alone is worth it.

But one has to understand the mind of the average, no I should say the vast majority, of FSX users, and they want what they see to resemble what they see in real life. That is why there are so many texture add-ons, mesh add ons, why people insist on using the ENB mod even though it makes FSX terribly unstable.

I am telling you, MS will market Flight in two ways, one as a game for those who have nothing to do with FSX or FS9, and then to the already hard core flight simmers, that it is FSX with better graphics and stability. That alone will get most FSXers to get Flight.

It used to be that if you want FSX to run at its peak, you had to use Win XP. Vista and FSX just did not play nice together, and all sorts of things had to be done, like mess around with sound quality, to get it to run fairly stable.

Now that is not at all the case. If you want FSX to run at its peak, you need to use Win 7. FSX on Win 7 is more stable, and runs faster than it ever did on XP, as long as you have entered that HIGHMEMFIX line into your.cfg file.

But you have a full DX10 FSX, or better yet a full DX11 FSX, considering you are dealing with water, clouds, road and building night lighting, DX11 will make a vast improvement over what default FSX looks like.
I think that even X-Plane 9 looks better than FSX although it's based on OpenGL (it somehow looks more real whilst FSX has GTA-/game-style graphics). The DX11 improvement is not enough improvement for changing a perfectly running OS just to have slightly different glare effects etc. And MS won't be able to force me to change by not making DX10 and DX11 compatible with XP. They would have to come up with real innovations.
FADEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.